This section is intended to introduce the reader to various aspects of art, which may be related to various aspects of the present invention that are described and/or claimed below. This discussion is believed to be helpful in providing the reader with background information to facilitate a better understanding of the various aspects of the present invention. Accordingly, it should be understood that these statements are to be read in this light, and not as admissions of prior art.
The use of three-dimensional (3D) objects has been increasing in the last years, particularly with the emergence of metaverses. There are multiple usages for 3D objects: socializing worlds, games, mirroring worlds, simulation tools, but also 3D User interfaces, animation movies and visual effects for television. Generally, 3D virtual objects represent real money value. In socializing worlds and games, players are selling virtual objects or avatars to other players for real money. Building an experienced character within an online game is a very lengthy process that can require hundreds of hours behind the keyboard. The 3D model of a real-world object from a simulation tool allows manufacturing the real (counterfeit) object and selling it. Leaking the 3D model for a scene of the next blockbuster from Hollywood studios may result in bad press for the studios. As can be seen, in many cases, 3D objects are assets of great value for their owner.
Strategies for content protection comprise confidentiality protection—intended to make it impossible for unauthorized users to access the content, e.g. by encryption—and watermarking—intended to make it possible to track a user who has disseminated the content without authorization to do so.
Basic methods of 3D content protection focus on the entire data, i.e. all the data is either encrypted or watermarked (or both), although these methods are somewhat crude.
More subtle ways of protecting 3D content is to protect one or more of its 3D objects. This is possible as 3D content often is made up of a number of distinct objects positioned in a setting. When each 3D object is coded as a separate entity, it becomes possible to protect each of these separately and it is not necessary to protect all of them.
For example, US 2008/0022408 describes a method of 3D object protection by storing the “bounding box” of the object as non-encrypted data in one file and the protected 3D object as encrypted data in a separate file. Any user may access the non-encrypted data, but only authorized users can access the encrypted data; non-authorized users see a basic representation thereof (i.e. the bounding box), such as a parallelepiped instead of a car. However, this method was developed to be used with 3D rendering software and is less suited for multimedia content, such as video and film. In addition, the file format (one file with non-encrypted data and one file with encrypted data) is non-standard and is thus usable only by adapted rendering devices, not standard ones. Indeed, the encrypted data does not respect the syntax of most 3D techniques and can thus normally not be used.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,678,378 describes a solution for protecting a 3D Computer Aided Design (CAD) object by encryption. The solution may encrypt one of the coordinate values of the nodes and the equations for the edges or the contours, by nonlinear or affine transformation, thereby distorting the 3D object or by ‘normal’ encryption such as RSA.
Problems with this solution is that the calculations may be costly (in particular when using RSA) and that the distortions may not be sufficient to deter a malicious user from using the content nevertheless. In addition, in the case of ‘normal’ encryption, the 3D object may not be readable at all by a content consuming device—such as a computer or a television—which may be a drawback in some cases.
A digital rights enabled graphics processing system was proposed in 2006 by Shi, W., Lee, H., Yoo, R., and Boldyreva, A: A Digital Rights Enabled Graphics Processing System. In GH '06: Proceedings of the 21 st ACM SIGGRAPH/EUROGRAPHICS symposium on Graphics hardware, ACM, 17-26.]. With this system, the data composing the 3D object (collection of vertices, textures) is encrypted. Their decryption is handled within the Graphic Processing Unit, under control of licenses. It is proposed also to use multi resolution meshes to deliver simultaneously a protected and unprotected version of a 3D element. Although the system itself is a real progress towards secure 3D environments, the use of protected scenes with other Virtual Reality Modelling Language (VRML) renderers will lead to interoperability issues.
David Koller and Marc Levoy describe a system for protection of 3D data in which high-definition 3D data is stored in a server. The users have access to a low-definition 3D object that they can manipulate and when a user has chosen a view, a request is sent to the server that returns a two-dimensional JPEG that corresponds to the view. Hence the high-definition 3D data is protected as it is never provided to the users. (See “Protecting 3D Graphics Content” by David Koller and Marc Levoy. Communications of the ACM, June 2005, vol. 48, no. 6.) While this system works well for its intended use, it is not applicable when the full 3D data is to be transferred to a user.
A common problem with the prior art solutions is that they are not format preserving, but that they are based on the encryption of 3D data and that they provide a second set of 3D data that is usable by non-authorized devices so that the user can see something, e.g. a bounding box.
European patent application 10305692.5 describes a format preserving solution in which a 3D object comprising a list of points (i.e. vertices) is protected by permuting the coordinates of at least some of its points. European patent application 10306250.1 describes a similar solution in which the coordinates of at least one dimension of the vertices of a 3D object are permuted independently of the other dimensions. The lists detailing how the points are connected remain unchanged, but the 3D object no longer “makes sense” as these points no longer have the initial values. Advantages of these solutions is that the protected 3D object is readable also by devices that are not able to ‘decrypt’ the protected 3D object—although it does look very strange—and that the protected 3D object is inscribed in a bounding box of the same size as the original 3D object.
While the latter solutions work well, it will be appreciated that there may be a need for an alternative solution that can enable protection of 3D objects with quick calculations that still enables an unauthorized content consuming device to read and display the 3D object, albeit in a manner that renders the viewing thereof unsatisfactory. The present invention provides such a solution.